Why trying to reason a JW out of the cult is a lost cause (and what the solution might be).

by OneEyedJoe 51 Replies latest members private

• 

  OneEyedJoe

  "If you were in the LDS Church (Mormons) and I could prove to you that it was not a religion teaching the truth, would you listen and act on what I said, even though all your friends and family are Mormons ?"

  That's a great approach to lead in with, and it may give you an entrance to introduce something that will impact that person emotionally, but you don't win them over with pure logic. You might be able to use logic to derive a conclusion that results in them wanting to leave, but it's only because this conclusion strikes at one of their core values.

  The point of all this is not to say that there's no place for logic in trying to wake someone up (in spite of my rather sensationalist thread title). The point is that just using logic doesn't work unless you're able to convince someone of a fact that impacts them at a core emotional level enough to motivate action. I can prove to my wife that the cult has killed people unnecessarily and even get her to agree, but apparently that fact does not impact her on an emotional level enough to motivate action. She's more emotionally invested in the fantasy of paradise than she is in the realities of the current world and so death in this world does not seem to phase her.
• 

  Vidiot

  oneeyedjoe - "...I can prove to my wife that the cult has killed people unnecessarily and even get her to agree, but apparently that fact does not impact her on an emotional level enough to motivate action. She's more emotionally invested in the fantasy of paradise than she is in the realities of the current world and so death in this world does not seem to phase her."

  Like I said before, she needs a personal reason to "wake up", besides a principled one.

  Give it time, it'll probably happen (especially considering the direction the WTS seems to be taking ).

  In fact, her knowing that you won't bail on her once that happens might even make it easier for it to let it happen.

  I could be wrong.
• 

  warehouse

  Vidiot wrote:
  All evolutionary traits that developed for our species' survival?

  A ridiculous statement, (that order of human thought processes should simultaneously affect and be affected by evolution, which is a debate for another time) but if you would like to classify them as evolutionary traits, I don't think it really impacts this discussion, so I would be okay with this.

  OneEyedJoe wrote:

  Logic/rationality/reason is the derivation of a conclusion that must be true (or in practical use, is most likely to be)given a set of initial assumptions/premises.

  Irrationality is the opposite - reaching conclusions that do not follow from the given premises/assumptions.

  So for the sake of argument, let's say I imagine a truth, though no logic currently exists to support it. I then create logic to support my imagination and prove that it is factual. Was my imagination illogical or logical before I made the logic for it?
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  So for the sake of argument, let's say I imagine a truth, though no logic currently exists to support it. I then create logic to support my imagination and prove that it is factual. Was my imagination illogical or logical before I made the logic for it?
  

  I think you might be getting a little overly bogged down in the details here. I wouldn't say that your imagined idea was logical or illogical, just arbitrary. Upon supporting it with logic it then is demonstrated to be a logical idea.
• 

  C0ntr013r

  So for the sake of argument, let's say I imagine a truth, though no logic currently exists to support it. I then create logic to support my imagination and prove that it is factual. Was my imagination illogical or logical before I made the logic for it?

  I agree with OEJ, the truth becomes logical when it has logic supporting it. Just because something is not logical does not mean that it is illogical.

  This approach also sounds a lot like rationalization. When you rationalize, you start with the "truth" and "come up with" the logic to support it afterwards.

  To attain a logical stance you must start with the logic to derive the truth, not the other way around.
• 

  done4good

  OEJ - would assert that you still had an emotional reason for actually taking action. It didn't "feel right" to you (I'm an NT myself and I completely understand what you mean - it never felt right to me either) but why does that mean that you need to leave? Why not continue on in the cult in spite of it not feeling right? Your heart is treacherous, after all. One could argue that the rational thing would be to stay in the cult - your entire social structure is built around it, you have no support outside it, why not just make pascal's wager and stay? Why does it have to be "true" for you to stay in? If you drive at it like that long enough, you will get to an emotional reason for leaving.

  I think you missed my point. Intuition is not the same as feeling. I was careful not to say I "felt" it was wrong, rather I "knew" it was wrong. Intuition is by definition is a subconscious assessment of information that produces a decided outcome of thought. This is exactly why an intuitive thinker can "know" something and not be able to articulate it well. The thought process is not linear, and tends to zoom in and out of perspectives, so external and perhaps seemingly extraneous facts can be considered in the decision making process. This process by nature is difficult to think through consciously, let alone articulate it well to another person, especially people who are primarily observant in nature, and take things at face value.

  d4g
  
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  And I think you missed my point. I get that you knew something was wrong on some level, but why did that motivate you to action? Just knowing that things don't add up is not sufficient to wake someone up. There are definitely hoards of active JWs that know that something is wrong in the org but they stick with it. Why did that do it for you? My point is that knowledge is not enough. There has to be a reason tied to your emotion to make you take action.

  Like I said, if you keep driving at it - why did that mean you needed to leave? What would it have meant for you if you stayed in spite of knowing it's wrong? - you'll eventually get to an emotional motivation.
• 

  done4good

  OEJ, you still keep confusing different things with intuition. First it was feeling, now its knowledge, neither equate to intuition. I am not trying to split hairs here, (and not trying to argue, either), just trying to get you to understand that emotion alone is not the reason a thinking person makes a big decision like leaving the JWs.

  I had very little knowledge in the matter of fact sense of the word, with respect to the reason I decided to leave. In the intuitive sense, I had more than enough information to formulate a decision, however. The very fact I am not going through the trouble to explain it all in linear fashion only proves my point. There is simply too much to consider, and all of that information is weighted differently. None of this means it was an emotional decision. This is also why no single event did it for me, as it does for some. Reacting to an event is emotional more times than not. Making a decision that has life changing effects requires a level of thought, (or at least it better).

  I am agreeing with you in that using facts or knowledge in the matter of fact sense does little to convince someone not ready to consider leaving. Feeling type personalities are emotionally attached, and thinking types may have not yet performed the intuitive analysis themselves, (for whatever reason), that will provide them with enough information to make a decision to leave. For the latter types, this process happens over time, and cannot be forced.

  d4g
  
• 

  C0ntr013r

  This reminds me of a book I read about influence. It had some points about influence when it comes to selling. There it described different people and how to approach selling to them in different ways.

  Selling to an emotional person entailed earning the persons trust, talking a lot with them, building a strong connection so they would buy from you.

  Selling to a analytic person was completely different, they wanted facts, data, hard evidence to convince them of buying.

  Different approaches are used by sales people so I think it is safe to assume that the approach would have to be fundamental different depending on the person.

  There where some more approaches discussed but I think these two where the most relevant for the discussion at hand.
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  My point remains the same - replace the words "know" "feel" or "knowledge" with whatever you like. What made you leave? It wasn't the intuition, it was your assessment of what that intuition means for you. Start thinking about it like I've been saying and you'll be able to get to something that can be described as nothing other than an emotional motivation for action.